Hi.

Am Montag, 5. November 2007 schrieb Alessandro Vesely:

Ehm, I won't call this a useful way to go. If you get more than a bounce a week, this starts buggin', doesn't it? :)

I think it's not. Forwards that are set up by the recipient shouldn't be illegal. This problem is IMHO exactly what SRS tries to resolve. If one of my customers forwards mail to his other account at some other company, the destination server rejects my message because the sender's address is still set to the original sender (that sent the message to me) and I am not listed as a valid sender for the sender's domain. That's a really common scenario and requires that the forwarding mail server rewrites the envelope sender to end up in his own domain that allows him to send mail (SPF-wise).

But simply rewriting the sender breaks automatic bounce processing.

For sure, I could use some per-user-script outside the mail server that does SRS (or any similar way) but that's not really easy to maintain.

And causes that his mail not to be forwarded if the destination is just a forward to another host and the forwarder does no sender rewriting.

I meant "SPF without widespread SRS" when I wrote "SPF standalone".

Absolutely, SPF should never be considered an anti-spam device. It was developed as anti-forgery device and that's what it is.

In a world free of forged e-mail sender addresses, fighing spam is much easier to do, but SPF does nothing against spam.

cu, Bernd